R. Mala, J.

1. The 2nd appellant, who lost the Appeal before the First Appellate Court, has come forward with the present Second Appeal.

2. The 1st respondent namely, S. Muthukumar, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 686 of 2003 before the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit property. He has stated that the suit property was originally belonging to his family and by way of a registered partition deed dated 23.08.1978, Schedule-J property was allotted to him and the 1st defendant was allotted Schedule-C property and the total extent has been mentioned commonly in both C and F schedule properties. At the time of partition, the plaintiff was 6 years old minor and hence, the cousin of the plaintiff namely, Shankar was maintaining the suit property. In the mean time, when the 1st defendant has attempted to sell the entire property, namely, Schedule-C and J, immediately the plaintiff issued a notice. However, without receiving the said notice, he sold the property to the 2nd defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property.

3. Before the Trial Court, the 1st defendant was set ex parte. The appellant/2nd defendant has filed a detailed written statement. In the written statement the 2nd defendant has admitted the factum of partition and also admitted the fact that Schedule-C & J properties are one and the same. However, he has stated that from the date of purchase of the properties, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and hence, he has prescribed title by adverse possession and therefore, he is the bona fide purchaser for value. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement, has framed necessary issues. After considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A5 and Exs. B1 to B12 the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the 1st defendant has not prescribed title by adverse possession. But however, the Trial Court held that the 2nd defendant/appellant is the bona fide purchaser for value and dismissed the suit. Further, the Trial Court has held the suit is barred by limitation.

5. As against which, an appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 2009 has been preferred by this plaintiff before the Fast Track Court (Additional District Judge), Dindigul, and the finding of the Trial Court in respect of adverse possession, the appellant herein has preferred a cross objection.

6. The Appellate Court, after considering the materials on record, has dismissed the Cross Objection and allowed the appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 2009 dated 19.02.2010 stating the suit is not barred by limitation and granted preliminary decree and separate possession on half share in the suit property.

7. The Appellate Court held that the suit in O.S. No. 686 of 2003 was not filed for setting aside the partition deed, namely, Ex. A1 and further the Appellate Court held that the 2nd defendant/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser for value, even though notice has been issued much prior to the sale, without receiving the same, the sale has been effected. On that basis, the appeal in A.S. No. 20 of 2009 has been allowed and Cross Objection was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 20 of 2009, the present Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) No. 304 of 2016 is filed and A.S. No. 305 of 2016 has been filed for dismissing the Cross Objection.

8. At the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in granting preliminary decree even though in Ex. A1, partition deed, properties are divided between all the children of Chidambaram Pillai?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in rejecting the plea of adverse